154
‘I would not have pulled Lush out of Russia if it weren’t for public pressure’
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
154 points (97.0% liked)
World News
46023 readers
4494 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
why would he say the quiet part out loud? how would this not make him seem like a piece of shit?
i tried to read in the article where he might say something about why but it really is just 'profits at all costs'.. wants to avoid the use of words like 'ethical'.. gotcha. i understand what kind of person you are now.
I think this is misrepresenting what he said. His stance is basically that he felt like they were punishing honest workers and business partners, people who never lied or cheated or hurt anyone, for something that they had no part in due to public pressure. He’s not wrong either unless people have some kind of explanation for how a cosmetics manufacturer is supposed to stop Putin from murdering innocent Ukrainians fighting against his pointless war and innocent Russians who don’t want to fight for him.
Because it might apply pressure to those rich enough to influence Putin. Because it slows their economy. Because it sends a message.
It's one raindrop in the flood. But without raindrops, there is no flood.
So, considering it hasn’t made a difference and Russia is still attacking Ukraine and Putin is still in power, how do you reconcile what you just said with the reality of the situation?
The only thing that’s changed is that Lush’s partner in Russia and all their employees have no income now.
So because it didnt immediately and totally fix the problem theres no point to it? Is that the "argument" you're making?
Lush did this in March of last year. I’m just asking what you’re expecting from this considering that they did do what you suggested. When is the effect you’re saying is supposed to happen going to happen?
You don’t have to be an asshole. It’s a legitimate question based on your assertion that all that needs to happen is pressure needs to be put on people.
I think you're the one being an asshole here.
Just because things don't turn out how you hoped doesn't mean you didn't make the right decision at the time with the information that was available.
Too often we judge past actions only through the lens of hindsight. It's useful for learning what went wrong but it's not useful for judging if something was the right decision or not.
I agree but that’s what I’m failing to understand. How does hurting the working class a tiny bit and making their lives harder do anything to stop Putin? Clearly the founder of Lush doesn’t and didn’t feel like it was the right decision at the time. It also not having the intended effect seems like a confirmation that it wasn’t the right decision rather than an indictment.
Bowing to public pressure doesn’t make the public right. If anything, it’s virtue signaling to keep your customer base instead of it being the right thing to do.
It was all part of an effort to economically hurt Russia in response to the war.
Best case scenario was Russia deciding the hit to their economy was not worth the war and back pedaling. No one realistically thought this was going to happen though.
The next best case scenario was for the changes in quality of life for the average Russian would create enough internal pressure that the war would be called off.
This hasn't happened yet but internal support for the war has been dropping over the last year and some of that is attributed to the dismal state of the Russian economy, which is a direct result of things like Lush pulling out.
https://www.euronews.com/2023/12/02/russians-support-of-ukraine-war-collapses-finds-poll
And even if neither of these come up fruition, the more Russias economy is damaged the harder it is to fund their war effort. This gives Ukraine a bit more breathing room in their war effort.
While the effect of a single company like Lush is unnoticed, it's the collective effect of everything from these pullouts, to trade sanctions and other soft power diplomatic plays which total up to a noticable effect.
With respect, do you really trust poll numbers in a country where speaking out against the war will get you jailed or killed?
If anything, that supports the idea that the poll numbers should be even harder against the war than they are reported.
Great. Putin doesn’t care what the polling says.
That makes the drop in people saying they're pro-war more significant, not less.
I don’t care about what significance the results have if I don’t trust them…
Yeah but that's what sanctions are. It's not really possible to have convenient sanctions. How would that work.
Sanctions are typically the acts of a government state not the actions of a business. Businesses have to comply with them but only if they’re bound by them. That wasn’t the case here. Lush did this based on public outcry, not sanctions.
And at the end of the day if that interpretation is true, your essentially saying 'bad fucking luck' to all the Russians who lost their jobs while living in a country perpetrating a war that if they speak out against, they'll be jailed at best.
You're right, there's no convenient sanctions but if that's really what old mate Lush is saying, he's got a point.
i mean, this is one way to win a war. the other is with bombs and death. Russia chose to enter this war, it shouldn't be surprised when it affects its citizens.
no one should get to keep their war over seas and out of their own borders.
imagine a future where we could stop wars by just taking people's jobs...
Well, killing people using economy seems more humane than killing people using bombs, so I have to agree
Yes… I think that’s exactly what he’s saying.
Uhhuh and I was showing my dislike of that. It's good you can follow the conversation.
Wow. You’re fun.
A cosmetics manufacturer alone? No.
All western companies leaving however can make an economic hit that will benefit Ukraine.
As for the Russians? They can revolt or do something, otherwise they suffer. Who cares about them.
They suffer if they revolt too.
Judging by your name, you're an Aussie and I've got to say, disappointed in your complete writing off of the entire Russian population. How the fuck is some young girl working at Lush supporting Putin or deserving of suffering if they don't revolt?
Her taxes directly support the war. It's not as easy as people are good and bad. Good people can be in bad situations. Sanctions are supposed to hurt all people. That's how they work. It's seen as a lesser evil, rather than a good. They are damaging for both sides.
Why are you commenting this to me? I’m the one that pointed out that the parent’s interpretation of the story was wrong in the first place.
If stopping Putin from being in government is the only fix, the only possible action anyone could take would be ending Putin. Anything else would be useless.
It isn’t though, non-offensive actions have effects too.
That assumes that Russia has fair elections where voting would make a difference…
What non-offensive action could Lush’s production partner take that would make any difference?
They could just pff putin, no one would be offended.
That would have both a more immediate and impactful effect than…checks notes… stopping luxury soap production…
good points, thank you.
I'll take an honest cunt over a deceitful cunt any day of the week.
I think the article paints a pretty good portrait of a complicated but socially responsible business owner, even though I do think pulling out of Russia was the right thing to do even if it wasn't what he would've chosen.
That's the name of the game with carotidien. Profits at all costs.
And some people still say that the customers are helpless and calling for boycott doesn't work...
If people would demand other industries to be more in line with their moral values (like about climate change) that could also change a lot